STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MULCHAND LAKHAMSINH SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Special Criminal Application arises out of the judgment and order dated 13/05/1981 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1982 by the learned Sessions Judge Valsad (herein- after for short referred to as the learned Judge) whereby he allowed the said Appeal filed by Shri Mulchand Lakhamsinh Shah (for short referred to as opponent) quashing and setting aside the order dated 6/02/1982 passed by the District Supply Officer Valsad (for short referred to as D. S. O. Valsad) confiscating 74 tins of pamoline edible oil (for short referred to as M. M. oil tins).

(2.) Briefly speaking on the secret tip off on 13/05/1981 the Chief Supply Inspector Valsad alongwith Deputy Mamlatdar Supply Branch Pardi raided a cabin No. 5 of one Shivbhalsinh Rajbahadur- sing and seized 74 oil tins of the ownership of the opponent.

(3.) After necessary inquiry the Chief Supply Inspector submitted a report on 16/11/1981 alongwith relevant papers to the Collector Valsad for taking appropriate action against the opponent under the provisions of the Essential Commodity Act 1955 (for short referred to as the said Act). Thereafter it appears that the said proceedings came to be transferred to the D.S.O. Valsad and he on going through the relevant material feeling satisfied that the opponent had commit-ted breach of Sec. 3 of the said Act and certain provisions made under the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licensing & Stock Declaration) Order 1981 thought it proper to confiscate the same to the State. In this view of the matter as warranted under Sec. 6-B of the said Act he issued a show cause notice dated 2/12/1981 to the opponent which is produced at page 41 of the record of the case. the reading of this notice shows that (a) that the same was given in writing informing the opponent the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the M. M. oil tins; (b) that the same also gave in opportunity to opponent of making a representation in writing on or before 14/12/1981 against the proposed grounds of confiscation; and (c) that it further discloses that the opponent was also even an opportunity of being heard on 14/12/1981 at 11 hours in Collector Office. The record further shows that pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice one Mr. R. S. Kapadia the learned Advocate had appeared on 14/12/1981 before D.S.O. Valsad and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opponent and submitted an application for adjourning the case to some future date. The said adjournment application is found at page 45 of the record wherein on behalf of the opponent it has been submitted that he (the opponent desires to make a written representation against the proposed confisca- tion of M. M. oil tins and also wants to argue his case through his Advocate. It is further stated in the said application that as the marriage of the opponent was fixed on 21/12/1981 due to the same he could not instruct his Advocate in time for filing the written representation. Under the circumstances it was prayed that the case may be adjourned on any date in January. This application for adjournment was granted by the D.S.O. Valsad and the case was adjourned to 18/01/1982 for submitting a representation in writing and also for hearing the opponent. Thereafter the opponent had submitted his written representation dated 11/01/1982 to the D.S.O. Valsad. On 18/01/1982 the learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia appeared on behalf of the opponent before D.S.O. Valsad and made submissions against the proposed order of confiscation of M. M. oil tins to the State It may be re-called at this stage that earlier when the application for adjournment on 14/12/1982 was submitted it was specifically mentioned therein that the opponent desired to be heard through his Advocate. Accordingly after taking on record the representation in writing and oral submissions made by opponent through his learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia the D.S.O. Valsad by a judgment and order dated 6/02/1982 was pleased to order the confiscation of M. M. oil list to the State.